Mumbai, Maharashtra – January 13, 2022 – The Special Judge constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Greater Bombay, Shri. S. P. Naik-Nimbalkar, has rejected the bail application of Shri. Anil Madanji Jadhav, the Chairman of the Maharashtra State Skill Development Society (M.S.S.D.S.). Jadhav was arrested and prosecuted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and has been in judicial custody since January 10, 2022. The order, dated January 12, 2022, denies bail based on the preliminary stage of the investigation, the high position held by the accused, and the potential for him to influence the investigation and witnesses.

Prosecution’s Case: Demand and Acceptance of Bribe

The prosecution’s case, based on the complaint of Mr. Deepak Shrichand Tekchandani of Tender Skin International Cosmetology Academy, alleges that Jadhav demanded a bribe of ₹5,00,000 for granting final approval to the academy’s courses. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) conducted a verification process following the complaint. The prosecution relied on a demand verification dated December 14, 2021, where Jadhav allegedly demanded the bribe.

Subsequently, on January 4, 2022, a trap was laid. The first informant met Jadhav and placed three envelopes containing ₹5,00,000 (including fake currency) on the table. Jadhav allegedly picked up the envelopes and kept them in his desk drawer. Following a pre-arranged signal, the ACB raided the office, arrested Jadhav, and recovered the bribe money. An FIR (C.R. No. 1/2022) was registered against him. Searches at his office and residence led to the seizure of substantial amounts of cash (₹2,28,100 and ₹79,63,500), gold and silver ornaments, laptops, pen drives, and hard disks, totaling ₹1,73,34,765.

Applicant’s Grounds for Bail: False Implication, Completed Investigation, and Medical Condition

Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, the learned advocate for Jadhav, argued that his client was innocent and falsely implicated. He pointed to the delay of 22 days between the demand verification and the trap, suggesting malafide intent by the ACB. He submitted that the investigation was virtually complete as all alleged material had been seized, making further custody unwarranted. Jadhav had already been in police custody for six days and was willing to cooperate with the investigation if released.

The defense also highlighted that Jadhav had no criminal antecedents, was a permanent resident, and had tested positive for COVID-19 during police custody, requiring home quarantine and medical treatment. It was argued that there was no further need for custodial interrogation and that Jadhav would not abscond, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses due to his reputation and family ties.

Prosecution’s Objections: Preliminary Stage of Investigation, High Position, and Risk of Influence

Mr. Pankaj Chavan, the learned A.P.P. for the State/ACB, opposed the bail, stating that the investigation was at a preliminary stage and detailed investigation was yet to be done. He emphasized Jadhav’s high position in the government, arguing that his release could adversely affect the ongoing investigation as he might pressurize the first informant and other witnesses.

The prosecution also highlighted the large amounts of cash and valuables seized from Jadhav’s residence and office, for which no explanation was provided during police custody. They argued that important documents related to the crime were yet to be seized from his office and that he might destroy evidence or influence other public servants if released. The prosecution also raised concerns about Jadhav potentially fleeing Mumbai.

Court’s Reasoning: Prima Facie Case, Seriousness of Offence, and Ongoing Investigation

Special Judge Naik-Nimbalkar, after considering the arguments and perusing the case papers, found that prima facie there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation against Jadhav for the offense under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was well-founded. The court noted the detailed account of the demand and acceptance of the bribe in the police papers.

The court emphasized the serious nature and gravity of the offense, particularly the demand and acceptance of a substantial bribe amount by a public servant. While acknowledging that Jadhav was not currently charged with disproportionate assets under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, the court considered the large quantum of seized cash, gold, silver ornaments, and electronic gadgets as significant.

The court disagreed with the defense’s contention that the investigation was complete. It noted that the remand report indicated Jadhav tested positive for COVID-19 and was in judicial custody for treatment, which did not imply the conclusion of the investigation concerning his role in the crime. The court highlighted the need to uncover the nexus of the accepted bribe amount with other individuals and to verify the data in the seized electronic devices.

The court also stressed Jadhav’s important government position as Chairman of M.S.S.D.S., empowering him to make decisions impacting society. The prosecution’s submission that witnesses from his office were yet to provide documents was also noted, raising concerns about potential influence if he were released.

Regarding Jadhav’s medical condition, the court observed that no medical certificate indicating unfitness for custody was produced. While acknowledging the “home quarantine” advice, the court stated that medical grounds alone did not necessitate bail for further treatment. However, it directed the jail authorities to provide adequate medical assistance if Jadhav complained of ill-health and to follow COVID-19 treatment protocols.

Conclusion: Bail Rejected to Prevent Hampering of Investigation

In conclusion, the court found the nature and gravity of the offense to be serious and the investigation and interrogation to be incomplete. The magnitude of the offense and the potential for Jadhav, in his high-handed position, to hamper the ongoing investigation by influencing witnesses and potentially destroying evidence led the court to reject his bail plea at this stage.

The court, however, directed the Superintendent of Arthur Road Central Prison to provide necessary medical care to Jadhav if he reported any health issues and to adhere to COVID-19 treatment protocols. The bail application was accordingly disposed of.